6 ms·

I don’t think the OP is arguing against communal childcare rather the paradox of the way we choose to measure economic activity results in the same work outsid

I don’t think the OP is arguing against communal childcare rather the paradox of the way we choose to measure economic activity results in the same work outside of the home having more value than the work inside the home. Even if we were to assume efficiencies that would still imply that the work inside the home should have a value higher than zero.

midasuni 3y ago
If I charge my neighbour $100 to chop some wood and he charges me $100 to paint a fence then the economy booms. If we barter it the economy doesn’t notice. If we do the wood/fence ourselves the economy diesnt notice If we charge $1000 each the economy booms more than charging $100 each.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > If we barter it the economy doesn’t notice. It does. Of course it might not be properly reflected in the statistics but it still creates additional value in the economy.
  - adhesive_wombat 3y ago
    The best way to generate value will be if you both get done for illegal trading of services without training or licenses and generate a few hundred thousand to a million in GDP via the legal fees, plus remediation though approved service providers. Now you're thinking with Line Go Up!
  - steve1977 3y ago
    Not really IMHO. It only would if those goods get traded later on. One could probably even argue that it destroys value, as the labor is not bought on the market.
  - kbelder 3y ago
    Right. People are mistaking the map for the territory. Barter absolutely is part of the economy, and benefits the traders to the same degree a monetary transaction would; it just isn't included in most economic measures, because they're imperfect.
- koliber 3y ago
  That’s right. It’s because of taxes. In the first example there are various taxes that you will pay. Income tax. VAT or sales tax. Maybe license fees. These taxes go to the government, who in turn uses that money in some way. In the latter two examples tax revenue does not go up.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Barter income is taxed at fair market value. Some people cheat on their taxes by failing to report barter income, but let's not conflate tax fraud with GDP issues. You can't legally avoid income taxes by asking your employer to pay you in firewood or diamonds or whatever instead of fiat currency. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420
    - koliber 3y ago
      You are technically right. I don’t have the stats handy, but I am fairly confident that a large portion of the barter income is not reported.
- firejake308 3y ago
  Someone remind me, what's that joke about the economist who pays his friend to consume excrement and claims the GDP has increased?
  - ducharmdev 3y ago
    Two economists are walking in a forest and they come across a pile of shit. The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit. They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit. Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing." "That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"
- nradov 3y ago
  GDP statistics include barter transactions at fair market value. However, sometimes small barter transactions aren't reported in a way that can be counted in official economic statistics.
vasco 3y ago
Even on moral grounds I don't get the argument other than simplistic outrage for the sake of outrage. It's more efficient but also better for everyone if kids to grow up socializing and interacting with others in a communal setting than alone at home with one single adult.
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  That’s because you’re still engaging with an argument about collective vs individual childcare not the one being advanced by the OP which is about the failure to measure some economically advantageous work just because of the circumstances in which it is performed. As I said in my post that you replied to even if collective work is more efficient that doesn’t mean the value of the same work in the home is zero which is what it’s currently measured as.
- cafard 3y ago
  My mother did not work outside the home for the roughly ten-year span between my birth and my brother reaching school age. The communal setting, school apart, was called the neighborhood. This was the boom, so a given block could have quite a few kids on it.
  - steve1977 3y ago
    Same here. Sometimes my mother would look after me and the neighbor kids, sometimes my neighbors mom would look after me and her kids and so on, for example.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      It takes a village. But the village has lately eroded to "every family for themselves"
      - steve1977 3y ago
        I guess I'm happy to be still living in a rural area, this is not the case here.
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> measure It’s not about how we measure it, it’s about actual productivity. Having some sort of communal childcare which allows the majority of parents to work full time will always be more productive. > work inside the home should have a value higher than zero. And it does. You don’t spend money on childcare and other services and can spend it on something else (assuming you have it).
- anonymoushn 3y ago
  > It’s not about how we measure it, it’s about actual productivity. Having some sort of communal childcare which allows the majority of parents to work full time will always be more productive. What's measured is the amount paid. Hiring exclusively 1-on-1 tutors is "more productive" than communal childcare. Paying more money for the same services is also "more productive."
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    > more productive" than communal childcare. Paying more money for the same services is also "more productive." That’s not obvious, those tutors might be doing something else which is more productive instead. Just spending money does not do much on it’s own. e.g. paying $100 for a good/service when you can get an equivalent for $50 doesn’t “increase” productivity it just means your money is worth less. If children educated by private tutors are not significantly more productive than those from a normal school longterm that would only lead to lower productivity/higher inflation.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > And it does. You don’t spend money on childcare and other services and can spend it on something else (assuming you have it). But you lose, at least in the UK, from tax. If a married couple works, they each get tax allowances; first 10k is tax free, each, and then the next 30k is taxed at 20%, and the rest (up to 100k) is taxed at 40%. If one person works and the other doesn't, they exist in a world where most couples work and bid up house prices, and they're taxed more for it. It's massively disincentivised to have a parent who raises your own kids and does other community activities (e.g. be on PTAs/school boards), unless you earn so much you can push through it.

midasuni 3y ago

If I charge my neighbour $100 to chop some wood and he charges me $100 to paint a fence then the economy booms. If we barter it the economy doesn’t notice. If we do the wood/fence ourselves the economy diesnt notice If we charge $1000 each the economy booms more than charging $100 each.

ffgjgf1 3y ago
> If we barter it the economy doesn’t notice. It does. Of course it might not be properly reflected in the statistics but it still creates additional value in the economy.
- adhesive_wombat 3y ago
  The best way to generate value will be if you both get done for illegal trading of services without training or licenses and generate a few hundred thousand to a million in GDP via the legal fees, plus remediation though approved service providers. Now you're thinking with Line Go Up!
- steve1977 3y ago
  Not really IMHO. It only would if those goods get traded later on. One could probably even argue that it destroys value, as the labor is not bought on the market.
- kbelder 3y ago
  Right. People are mistaking the map for the territory. Barter absolutely is part of the economy, and benefits the traders to the same degree a monetary transaction would; it just isn't included in most economic measures, because they're imperfect.
koliber 3y ago
That’s right. It’s because of taxes. In the first example there are various taxes that you will pay. Income tax. VAT or sales tax. Maybe license fees. These taxes go to the government, who in turn uses that money in some way. In the latter two examples tax revenue does not go up.
- nradov 3y ago
  Barter income is taxed at fair market value. Some people cheat on their taxes by failing to report barter income, but let's not conflate tax fraud with GDP issues. You can't legally avoid income taxes by asking your employer to pay you in firewood or diamonds or whatever instead of fiat currency. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420
  - koliber 3y ago
    You are technically right. I don’t have the stats handy, but I am fairly confident that a large portion of the barter income is not reported.
firejake308 3y ago
Someone remind me, what's that joke about the economist who pays his friend to consume excrement and claims the GDP has increased?
- ducharmdev 3y ago
  Two economists are walking in a forest and they come across a pile of shit. The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit. They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit. Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing." "That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"
nradov 3y ago
GDP statistics include barter transactions at fair market value. However, sometimes small barter transactions aren't reported in a way that can be counted in official economic statistics.

vasco 3y ago

Even on moral grounds I don't get the argument other than simplistic outrage for the sake of outrage. It's more efficient but also better for everyone if kids to grow up socializing and interacting with others in a communal setting than alone at home with one single adult.

meheleventyone 3y ago
That’s because you’re still engaging with an argument about collective vs individual childcare not the one being advanced by the OP which is about the failure to measure some economically advantageous work just because of the circumstances in which it is performed. As I said in my post that you replied to even if collective work is more efficient that doesn’t mean the value of the same work in the home is zero which is what it’s currently measured as.
cafard 3y ago
My mother did not work outside the home for the roughly ten-year span between my birth and my brother reaching school age. The communal setting, school apart, was called the neighborhood. This was the boom, so a given block could have quite a few kids on it.
- steve1977 3y ago
  Same here. Sometimes my mother would look after me and the neighbor kids, sometimes my neighbors mom would look after me and her kids and so on, for example.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    It takes a village. But the village has lately eroded to "every family for themselves"
    - steve1977 3y ago
      I guess I'm happy to be still living in a rural area, this is not the case here.

ffgjgf1 3y ago

> measure It’s not about how we measure it, it’s about actual productivity. Having some sort of communal childcare which allows the majority of parents to work full time will always be more productive. > work inside the home should have a value higher than zero. And it does. You don’t spend money on childcare and other services and can spend it on something else (assuming you have it).

anonymoushn 3y ago
> It’s not about how we measure it, it’s about actual productivity. Having some sort of communal childcare which allows the majority of parents to work full time will always be more productive. What's measured is the amount paid. Hiring exclusively 1-on-1 tutors is "more productive" than communal childcare. Paying more money for the same services is also "more productive."
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > more productive" than communal childcare. Paying more money for the same services is also "more productive." That’s not obvious, those tutors might be doing something else which is more productive instead. Just spending money does not do much on it’s own. e.g. paying $100 for a good/service when you can get an equivalent for $50 doesn’t “increase” productivity it just means your money is worth less. If children educated by private tutors are not significantly more productive than those from a normal school longterm that would only lead to lower productivity/higher inflation.
robertlagrant 3y ago
> And it does. You don’t spend money on childcare and other services and can spend it on something else (assuming you have it). But you lose, at least in the UK, from tax. If a married couple works, they each get tax allowances; first 10k is tax free, each, and then the next 30k is taxed at 20%, and the rest (up to 100k) is taxed at 40%. If one person works and the other doesn't, they exist in a world where most couples work and bid up house prices, and they're taxed more for it. It's massively disincentivised to have a parent who raises your own kids and does other community activities (e.g. be on PTAs/school boards), unless you earn so much you can push through it.